PAGES

Friday, September 12, 2014

The glitzy NATO summit in Newport has not publicly announced major
decisions but it is likely that they were taken in secret. To prevent
Russia and China - but also India - from continuing their development,
NATO can count on Terrorism from the Islamic Emirate which it pretends
to condemn and fight.

The Newport (Wales) Summit is NATO’s largest since
the 2002 Prague edition. At the time, it meant to include new central
and eastern European states within the Alliance. This time it’s about
planning a long-term strategy to contain the development of Russia and
China so as to prevent their competing with the United States [1].

Anything related to NATO is a matter of debate. Indeed, it has
continued, since its inception in 1949, to manipulate the facts to
present itself as a defensive alliance against Soviet expansionism,
whereas it is the Warsaw Pact, created six years later in 1955, which
aimed to defend the socialist states in the face of Anglo-Saxon (and not
vice versa) imperialism.

Moreover, contrary to its name, NATO is not an alliance of equals,
but a subjugation of partner armies by the United States and the United
Kingdom. Indeed, all member armies of this supposed "alliance" are under
the command of a single US officer who is also commander of American
forces in Europe-while the secret service of NATO, the "Gladio", under
the joint authority of Washington and London, ensures that the
anti-imperialists never come to power in the other Member States [2]. To do this, NATO has not skimped on political killings, nor even coups (in France [3], Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey).This subservience contravenes the principles of the UN Charter, as
Member States lose their independence of foreign policy and defense. It
was called into question by the Soviet Union and then by President
Charles De Gaulle, who, after facing forty NATO funded assassination
attempts by the OAS, gave it the boot, announcing the immediate
withdrawal of France from integrated command and the expulsion of 64,000
NATO soldiers and administrative staff from French territory.
This page of French independence ceased with the election of Jacques
Chirac under whom, a few months after his arrival at the Elysee, France
rejoined the Council of Ministers and the Military Committee of the
Alliance. This finally ended with the return of the French army under US
command as decided by Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009.
Finally, the subjugation of Member States continued with the creation
of many civil institutions, the main and most effective of which is the
European Union. Contrary to popular belief, the present Union has not
much to do with the ideal of European unity, but to bind the NATO
members out of Soviet influence and Russian aims, in accordance with the
secret clauses of the Marshall Plan. The idea is therefore to divide
Europe into two blocs. It is no coincidence that the offices of NATO and
those of the EU executive in Brussels are primarily situated in
Brussels and secondarily in Luxembourg. It is to allow control of the
Union by the Anglo-Saxons that it has acquired a strange Commission
whose main activity is to introduce economic or political "proposals",
all predefined by NATO. It is often ignored that the Alliance is not
just a military pact, but it intervenes in the economy. First NATO is
the #1 customer of the defense industry in Europe and determines
standards for its bidding, that is to say, for all that concerns the
daily lives of its soldiers. It is these standards that are proposed by
the Commission and adopted by the European Parliament.
Actually three quarters of the budget of NATO is funded by the United States alone.

The future of the Anglo-American imperialist project

Since the coup of 2001 [4],
the United States is planning a confrontation with China. With this in
mind, President Barack Obama announced the repositioning of US forces in
the Far East. However, this agenda has been disrupted by economic,
political and military recovery in Russia, which has been able in 2008
to defend South Ossetia under attack by Georgia and, in 2014, Crimea
threatened by the Kiev coup.
Furthermore, the project of "missile defense" has been dropped.
Presented as a system of protection against Iranian missiles, this
"shield" was actually an offensive system deployed around Russia to
paralyze it. A simple glance at a global map shows that Iranian
missiles, if they were to be launched at the United States, would not
pass over central Europe, but via the shortest path: the north pole.
After over a decade undermining relations between Washington and Moscow,
the project has been abandoned because it is technically impossible to
destroy the latest generation of Russian intercontinental missiles while
in flight. So it’s the very principle of "nuclear deterrence" that is
abandoned concerning Russia, although it remains relevant for other
states.
While performing its "pivot to Asia", Washington has exacerbated
tensions between China and its neighbors, especially Japan. NATO, which
historically vassallizes Europe to North America, has thereby opened
itself to Asian and Oceanian partners, notably Australia and Japan,
through association contracts. It has, in passing, broadened its field
of action to the whole world. [5]
In this time of budgetary restrictions, the Alliance, which is not
experiencing the crisis, is building a new headquarters in Brussels for
the staggering sum of € 1 billion. It should be ready in early 2017. [6]

The issue of the Islamic Emirate

This summer, to the preoccupation with preventing China and Russia
from controlling enough raw materials to develop the ability to compete
with the United States was added the issue of the Islamic Emirate.
An intense media campaign has demonized the jihadist organization
whose crimes are not new, but who just attacked the Iraqi people. We
have repeatedly explained that the IE is a Western creation and that,
despite appearances, its action in Iraq is entirely consistent with US
plans to divide the country into three separate states. [7]
For a project which constitutes a crime against humanity because it
assumes ethnic cleansing, Washington has used a private army that could
be condemned publicly while being supported covertly.
The United States would have taken the measure of the Islamist threat
after the IE murdered two of their nationals, journalists James Foley
and Steven Sotloff. However, a careful examination of the videos [8]
suggests that they are not authentic. The problem had already arisen
with the IE when it was supposed to have murdered Nick Berg in 2004 [9].
We have also often stressed that the IE was different from previous
jihadist groups both by its communication services and its civilian
administrators able to manage the conquered territories. So this is a
group which is meant to last. As Alfredo Jalife-Rahme showed, the
Caliphate, even if it is currently active mainly in Syria and Iraq, was
designed to bear arms against Russia, India and China in the long-term [10] .
The issue of the Islamic Emirate did not therefore have to be added
to the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese agenda. It was already part of it.
Moreover, not wanting to risk that a Member State might express doubts
about this masquerade, Washington shifted the debate to the sidelines
of the summit. President Obama met eight other states plus Australia
(which is not a NATO member, but only an associate) to develop its war
plan. It was later decided to add Jordan to this device.

Summit conclusions

The summit held a hurried morning session to expedite the question of
its long presence in Afghanistan. Certainly, NATO will withdraw its
combat troops as planned by year’s end, but it will retain control of
the Afghan army and national security. The summit even allowed itself
the luxury of calling on the two candidates for the Afghan presidency to
commit to signing without delay the criminal immunity requirements of
the United States, while this election is organized and the ballots
counted by American forces. Therefore, the candidate who does not agree
should not be surprised if he is not considered elected.
As one waves a red cape to excite a bull, the summit decided to
extend NATO control over the eastern part of Europe (including Ukraine),
just to see what would be the Russian reaction. But it has not gone
further. The NATO-Russia Founding Act has not been revoked and Ukraine
has not been incorporated into the Alliance. Everyone preferred to
discuss a possible cease-fire between Kiev and Donbass.
In addition, the summit equipped the Alliance with two new tools: a
cyber warfare service to counter Chinese military hackers, and a rapid
response force of 4000 men from 7 countries placed under British
command. Finally, the summit paved the accession process of Montenegro
and, of course, requires member states to develop their military
spending.

Some remarks

Despite accusations from the Ukrainian government - according to
which Russia would have invaded the country ... but with only 1,000 men
that no one has seen, as noted by Giulietto Chiesa [11] -,
the summit did not decide to go to war against Moscow and merely posed a
symbolic gesture. We do not understand therefore why such ostentation
was put on display in Newport.
Unless the important things have been decided behind closed doors at
the meeting of the Heads of State Friday, Sept. 5, it does not seem that
secret wars were discussed at the summit, but only on the sidelines of
the summit with certain allies only. Already in 2011, NATO had violated
its own rules by not assembling the Atlantic Council before bombing
Tripoli. It seemed effectively impossible that all would agree to such a
slaughter. The United States and the United Kingdom therefore met
secretly with France, Italy and Turkey in Naples to plan an attack that
caused at least 40,000 civilian deaths in one week.
The final release is a rare hypocrisy [12]:
the Ukrainian crisis is treated as a Russian aggression, without ever
mentioning the coup of Maidan Square, or the installation of a
government including Nazis. The Syrian crisis is presented as a conflict
between “ a moderate opposition which protects minorities” and at the
same time the “tyranny of the regime of Bashar al-Assad”, and “extremist
groups”, without ever mentioning that the Syrian regime is a republic
while the moderate opposition is paid by the dictatorships of the Gulf,
nor that the crisis was triggered by a secret Franco-British war in
accordance with the Annexes to the Treaty of Lancaster House, nor that
President Assad has just been re-elected by 63% of the electorate, and
that the Syrian Arab Republic is the only one to have protected not only
minorities, but all its citizens, including the Sunni majority.
Cynically, the statement claims that the Alliance has protected the
Libyan people, in accordance with resolutions 1970 and 1973, when in
fact it used these resolutions to change the regime in Lybia by killing
160,000 Libyans and plunging the country into chaos.
However, ultimately, in recent years NATO has achieved its goals in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and North East Syria, that is to say, solely
and exclusively in countries or regions organized into tribal societies.
It does not seem able to come into direct conflict with Russia and
China.